Cases to read for Motion to Suppress - google scholar

Motion to Suppress - http://duedates.pbworks.com/motion-to-suppress?mode=print 

1. Chimel v California (1969) 395 US 752, 23 L Ed 2d 685, 89 S Ct 2034 - (coin case) "within the immediate control and possession"

2. Katz v. U.S. - 389 U.S. 347 (1967) - (telephone booth case)  "4th Amend. protects persons not places"

3. Chambers v. Moroney 399 U.S. 42 (1970) - automobiles and other conveyances may be searched without a warrant in circumstances that would not justify the search without a warrant of a house or an office, provided that there is probable cause to believe that the car contains articles that the officers are entitled to seize.

4. People v. Carr (1972) 8 C.3d 287, 298, 104 C.R. 705, 502 P.2d 513 - consent to search premises

5. Chapman v. U.S. 365 U.S. 610 (1961) - landlord cannot give consent to search of a tenant's premises

6.  People v. Munoz (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 900 (1972) - head of household can give consent to search of a room

7.  People v. Robinson- 41 Cal.App.3d 658 (1974), - defendant's sister, with whom he had been staying, consented to search of area he had occupied and as to which he could have had no expectation of privacy; police properly seized closed suitcases and detained them while obtaining a warrant to search their interiors

8. People v. Daniels -16 Cal.App.3d 36 (1971)  defendant, an adult, lived with his mother, owner of the home; she could validly consent to a search of his bedroom, there being no circumstances to show that he had been given exclusive control over it

9. Pryor v Mun Court for L.A. Judicial District (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 238 - terms "lewd" and "dissolute" refer to sexually motivated conduct.

10. People v. Superior Court - 46 Cal.3d 381 (1988) - "[A] statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law

11. California Penal Code Section 647 (a) : Argue that prosecution for "lewd conduct" must show that a 3rd person or party "must be offended" - if police were at a distance using a microphone to record statement, and Bruno/Turner were in a parked car on a deserted road in the park,  one could argue that probably no 3rd person or party in park "was offended" by their conduct in the car (i.e. lewd conduct/"exposing oneself")